Skip to main content
3:30 pm
start shortly, so if i may, i simply wanted to make some last remarks. i do want to thank everyone who came out, i want to especially thank the work of all of the city agencies, the work that olse is doing and there's a lot of coordination that goes into this, but for me, what was especially touching was hearing from the worker who talked about his story and something that actually just happened so it's not like this is something that goes back two, three years, this is something that is very recent. i know that there are differences of opinion on this committee and on the board but i do think and with the mayor as well, i do hope we can get to a resolution. there are two issues that i think remain unresolved, i think on the issue of the surcharges, i know there has been an effort to address that
3:31 pm
issue, i still don't think the effort goes far enough and while i appreciate that this board and the mayor have given more resources to olse, i think that we flexed -- need to consider being more proactive about that work, olse is able to do that if they have the resources to do that, i don't think it's simply enough for us to react until there are complaints that are issued, protecting health care is something that requires more proactivity, there should be more proactive auditing that takes place, on the issue of the expenditure limitations that are placed, at the end of the day, as much as i do think that some progress was made on the surcharge, i think that on the expenditures, the amendment doesn't really do anything to
3:32 pm
address the fak that going forward, businesses will be able to place those restrictions and i think that that's something that is going to have to be addressed and i believe the only way to address it is to require that expenditure mean expenditure. the last thing that i would say is i think it's unfortunate that even though san francisco for a long time was leading the way on health care and i think for a long time we could say we were the leader in terms of providing universal health care in this country, i think san francisco has moved backward and the ironic think about hra's is we may have a possibility that as some people are defending the use of hra's here in san francisco, at the federal level because of the health care act, the hra's will no longer be allowed at the federal level, so you have a situation where the country is headed in the direction that san francisco was going not too
3:33 pm
long ago, in san francisco, it's going in the complete opposite direction. i think we're better than that and i hope we can find a solution here in city hall but i do think that if at the end of the day that solution is not found, i think that notwithstanding what happens in city hall, the people in the city of san francisco are fair and just and ultimately might require the voters step in and do what city hall is not aib do. i hope we don't have to get to that point but in the past, that has worked and has been needed so i think that all oxen are on the table today, but i look forward to continuing this discussion. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor compos, okay, so right now, having heard the various reports and taking public comment, the committee need to prepare responses to the findings and recommendations ver bait tum language which we will forward to the board for
3:34 pm
recommendation by way of resolution, so i guess we should go finding by finding, president chu? >> and i want to make a couple of introductory comments, i may also say, i am supposed to be at exactly the same schools and committee meeting, i think supervisor lag gi, we're all supposed to be there, unfortunately because the committee's coincide, i'll be here until the meeting ends, san francisco, we led the way when it came to moving forward with universal health insurance and i think the policies we have in place really demonstrate and are providing a leadership role for what it is we're doing, with we made a decision to require employers to put money into these accounts from january 1, 2012 to january 1, 2014, that was done with the idea that
3:35 pm
president obama's health care legislation would go into effect and we would soon be in a regime where i think these issues will truly be mute, so i want to make that point because there is a little bit of confusion about what it is we were doing but from my perspective, what we did put in place provide a lot of requirements for businesses to fulfill in order to make sure that employees are receiving health insurance. that being said to chairman wiener's points, i do have a number of obvious changes to the findings that were recommended to us by the civil grand jury and i must preface this by saying, i respect what the grand jury said, really in part because i don't think the findings reflect the amendments we put into place at the end of last year, if i could start going through the findings one at a time, for finding number 1, about whether the jury could
3:36 pm
not identify any governmental investigation or any government investigation that reports the number of businesses and surcharges to pay for scho, i suggest the committee state we disagree partially for the following reason, the board of supervisors passed legislation amending the health care security ordinance in november, 2011 that [inaudible] on employer compliance with the hdso, as a result, this information was required in the 2011 annual reporting forms distributed to employers in march, 2012, as of january, 2012, it required that all employers to [inaudible] if they add a surcharge for the purpose of covering in whole or in part the cost of expenditure mandate, this is reported
3:37 pm
annually in the olse, it does not address mandated paid sick days. >> i would agree to that. maybe we could do this by way of one motion in the end instead of motion by motion. >> with regards to finding 2, i also would respectfully disagree, again, reiterating that the board of supervisors pass legislation amending the cho, collecting money from employers to cover health care made on behalf of employees, that legislature required all covered employers to inform olse to add a surcharge where the purpose of covering the cost of the expenditure mandate, the city requires the reporting of all health care employees, this is reported annually in the olse ordinance, further in october, 2011, the
3:38 pm
district attorney's office opened a preliminary review and to this issue. with regards to finding number 3 and for members of the public, we have to read all this in the record for our purposes here which is why i am going through this, also respectfully disagree, the board of supervisors refers to the response by the city and county of san francisco treasure and tax collector and to the response board of equalization, with regards to finding number 4, we disagree, there's process in place at olse to collect, analyze and report on employer's surcharge data in compliance with provisions, it increased olse's budget. with regards to fundbacker
3:39 pm
finding number 5, again, respectfully disagreeing, olse's 2011 annual form, employees were asked to report to surcharge collections and expenditures for employee health benefits in 2011, effective 2012 in january as per an amendment to the schonf the amount of surcharges collected for employee health care exceeds the amount spent on employee health care tha, employer must irrevocably pay and designate that amount equal to that amount. finding number 6, partially disagree, the board of supervisors defers to the response of olse, and it is as follows, the ordinance regulates surcharges imposed on customers to cover in whole or in part the cost of the health care, it is difficult in some circumstances which of any
3:40 pm
portion of a surcharge is imposed for customers for this specific purpose, however, the olse will ensure that employers understand this provision of the ordinance for and are in compliance of it and for members of the public, we have many, many findings, departments gave us their recommendation and is we are incorporating the recommendations we see make sense. with regards to finding number 7, i would agree with that statement and incorporate the city attorney's spops to finding number 7 which states that a business commits consumer fraud if it assesses a surcharge for a stated purpose with the knowledge that it will use the money for a different purpose. with regards to responses to recommendations for recommendations 1, 2 and 3, i would recommend that we not implement those recommendations, for the first recommendation, i think we state that recent amends to the
3:41 pm
hcso adequately address the issue of consumer fraud, the board of supervisors support businesses identify how to cover their cost within the individual business models as long as it is done within compliance of the health care ordinance. such investigations are within the purview of the state..[reading].. tax collector. >> excuse me, president chu, are you specifying this recommendation will not be implemented? >> correct, for recommendations 1, 2 and 3. with recommendation 3, the finding should be that the board of supervisors defers to the district attorney's ongoing investigation, the board does have the power to require to pursue recommendations so this recommendation cannot be implemented by the board. going to the findings related to employer's health reimbursement accounts, finding number 8, disagree, and for this, the board of supervisors
3:42 pm
refers to the olse's response, the analysis of the 2010 annual reporting forms provides that employers allocated to health care reimbursement perhaps, flexible spending accounts, savings accounts, medical savings accounts, the 12 thousand dollars reports the amount..[reading].. from all of those types of accounts, the annual reporting form does not ask the employer's what happened, these allocation and is reimbursements were reported by 2019ed and 16 employers who submitted the annual reporting form to the olse, with regards to finding number 9, disagree, the city and county does not know employees and employers using those, similarly there is no data between the differing
3:43 pm
reimbursement rates, the board of supervisors made amendments and believes they will help increase reimbursement rates and other reimbursement programs. finding number 10, partially disagree, the board of supervisors defers to olse's response, finding number 1 1, partially disagree, time limits are standardized. finding number 12, partially disagree, the board of supervisors refers to the response of the city attorney, the city attorney agrees that hra's may not be an allowable option o under the affordable care act, this question will be answered definitively by forthcoming regulations. finding number 13, disagree partially. under the previous law, this could be have been a case under the recent amendment ts, this issue was addressed in a var
3:44 pm
iet of ways including posting and quarterly notice requirements so employees are aware of their benefits and how to use them and by requiring all unused monies to remain with the employee for 24 months, the law now requires that any benefit plan must be structured adds to be reasonably calculated to benefit the employee, olse has the authority to not be designed to benefit the employee and it should not be a qualified..[reading].. the new law that went into effect in january 1, 2012 pertains to that.
3:45 pm
they are administered by a third party according to to olse's data, 85% of employees use third party administrators or provide the type of benefit that would not be able to provide health information, many employers build in other safeguards that make sure that private health information remains confidential. and then with regards to the fourth response to recommendations around disallowing the use of employee hra options, i would recommend that it states it will not be implemented, the hra are important to businesses and with respect to complying with the chro, they use appropriate tools to make benefits readily available to their employees and with regards to the
3:46 pm
response of recommendation number 5, i suggest we state that it not be implemented with regards to eliminating time limits. it defer tos the public health response, so thank you for listening to that, and i'm making a motion that we revise the motion that included these findings and revise them as i had just stated on the record. >> and to budget and legislative analyst, anything to add? >> no, we have all of the information and if the motion is approver, we will revise the resolution part. >> i'm in agreement with those changes so we'll take that without objection. >> and just in closing remarks, i know this is an issue that obviously has a lot of perspectives and responses from my perspective, i do know and we will be monitoring this data carefully and it is my hope that the education efforts engaged in by the city and the business community will have the intended impact. if it doesn't, i do look
3:47 pm
forward to further conversations in what we can do to ensure that employees have the health care they deserve. >> okay, thank you. then perhaps we could entertain a motion to file items 1 and 2 and to forward item 3 to the full board with a positive recommendation? >> i'll make that motion. er >> we can take that without objection. >> item number 4. >> item number 4 is a motion revising the priorities of the budget and analyst 2012 audit skej july. -- schedule. >> and i would like to recommend that we -- subject to public comment continue this to the next goa meeting, i think that would be appropriate because two out of the three regular members of the meeting are not here. is october 9th the next meeting? >> october 2 -- 11.
3:48 pm
>> okay, i entertain a motion to continue this to october 11? >> we have to take public comment. >> is there any public comment on item 4 at all? great, public comment is closed. >> moved to continue this item to the 11th of october. >> we can take that without objection as to item number 4. okay, item number 5. >> item number 35 is authorizing the fire department to retroactively to upgrade its self-contained breathing apparatus and inventory. >> the fire department is here for item number 5. >> good afternoon, mr. chair, supervisor chu, mark from the fire department, together with our department of training and assistant deputy chief to present the next item on the agenda, the fire department is very excited to present this
3:49 pm
project and would like to thank supervisor farrell for his sponsorship, it's for a fema grant in -- for the replacement of the replacement of the self-contained breathing apparatus, they include air respirators and fire masks fire fetters wear, the department's current scba inventory is not compliant with the national standards, as a result of both technological improvements as well as design improvements, there's been enhancements made over the past decade or so, the department has requested placement units in previous year's budget request but due to the cost of these units and economic realities, we have not been successful in replacing these items so we requested and
3:50 pm
searched out alternative funding sources, the department applied for a grant to replace cba inventory and the department received notification in february that it was awarded a grant. this project was not planned in last year's budget, with the help of the mayor's office, we submitted a request for the general fund match to be included in the 12-13 budget which was passed by the board. there was a one time increase ated to our fiscal year 12-13 budget, the total value of the project is approximately 1.9 million which is made up of the 1 million 514 thousand 184 dollars which is 80% in the federal funding and a grant match of 20%. while this seems like a significant amount of money which it is, we've been able to l*efrnl this fema money by 1.1 million in homeland security funding, other federal money and this will bring the total project amount to approximately 3 million and there's no grant
3:51 pm
match required for the homeland security funding, with the additional funding, this will bring our department's cba to the current nfpa standards and have a positive impact on the health and safety of our members, with that, i would like to turn it over to chief bellows and after that we'll be free to answer any wes you may have. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, chair, president, my name is jose bellows, i'm also the department of safety officer which deals with safety equipment and gear and apparatus, i'm happy to be here to hopefully get this grant approved, and i just wanted to explain to you the major changes that happened to this
3:52 pm
apparatus, there were two standards that were passed after we purchased the last [inaudible] in 2002, it was a system that alerts all the firefighters when the fire dieters go into distress, there was some safety concerns and the nfpa recognized them and based on those concerns, they made the manufacturers improve this, there's other safety improvements that went down as much as having a display in the front of the [inaudible], you can see how much air is left, they made changes regarding the -- having a connector if you go into the partner, if you can connect to the partner and get the air out safely. this comes down by having safer equipment, we can protect the community bet r by being able to go into the buildings from the smoke and fire and being safe for our members and also
3:53 pm
safety, the civilians we're supposed to protect, there's other different technical improvements being done such as the requirement to have the mask being cbrn which is biological and nuclear improved because of an event of maz destruction, we can operate with those masks as well, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the equipment. >> thank you very much, and i've said this before, you know that i think there is sometimes a perception among at least some members of the public that we don't have fires anymore and everything is so advanced that we -- that the fire department, maybe it shouldn't be as big as it should be, and what i really have really learned or been reiterated to me through experience is that we have a lot of fires many the city and
3:54 pm
in my district alone, it seems like there is hardly a week goes by when there's not some sort of fire and we've had bad ones and arsons and in my district when two firefighters died in the line of duty, having this safety ap ruts is very important. is there any public on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> yes, we did write a report on this item because it had technical impact. >> legislative analyst, i apologize. >> it's to delete the board retroactively pr the resolution because it's not retroactive and another is to correct the
3:55 pm
grant amount to 1514184. >> thank you. i did see that and my apologies for forgetting. is the department in agreement with these recommendations? >> yes. can we take that amendment without objection? that will be the order, and can we forward this to the full board with recommendations? so ordered. item number -- actually, is there any public comment for item number 7? okay, i'm going to suggest that we take item 7 out of order because it's a very quick item because i know there is public comment for number 6, it will be pretty brief, thank you for waiting, so can we please call item number 7. >> it is an ordinance administrating the code section 6.22 to reduce the amount of
3:56 pm
retention withheld from progress payments in construction. >> i'm the director from public works and the civic engineer, last year, the state passed code section 6.22 from 10 to 5%, san francisco is a charter city and does not have to follow or apply sb293, however, under the direction of edward lee, this ordinance may lead to support small contractor and is to align our policies with those of the states. currently, city departments with contracting authority reduced the retention from 10 to 5 percent on every public statement when the work completed by the contractor exceeds 50% of the value of the entire contract. this modification reduces the
3:57 pm
retention amount to 5% from the beginning of the contract until the end. this change will provide more cash flow available to small contractors while working on six projects, hopefully, there's better performance and timely confusion. i would be more than happy to answer any questions if you have and i'm joined here today with [inaudible] from the city attorney's office. >> alright, thank you. is there any public comment on item number 7? i'm sorry, before we get to public comment, could you step aside for a second. supervisor chu's a sponsor, my apologies. >> carmen was going to be here, i'm a co-sponsor for this
3:58 pm
legislation, as you know, supervisor chiu has a history of sponsoring ledge -- legislation for contractors to do business, we want to be able to help businesses have better cash flow and again just this has to do with prime contractors, we have legislation upcoming that we are trying to work with to address prompt payments, we want to urge your support on this legislation. >> now public comment, my apologies for the confusion before. >> [inaudible] contractor, and certainly, any way we can help more cash flow for small contractors is a good thing, so i support this. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.
3:59 pm